Political communication studies has a long tradition of ‘crisis talk’ regarding the fate of public communication. Now, however, the field itself faces a kind of existential crisis as its core assumptions of ‘normal’ political communication are daily undermined. This ‘liberal normalcy’ shares much with orthodoxies in populism studies, most notably a tendency to bracket out demagogic communication, both in historical fascist regimes and democracies. Yet correcting these failings is not simply a matter of rejecting liberal models for left-populist ones. Rather, both fields need to broaden their historical parameters and deepen their theoretical frameworks. The article draws on the Weberian conception of modern demagogy and its revision in the wake of 'modern media' by Shils and Adorno. It further argues that a critical reworking of Hallin and Mancini’s media systems approach could benefit both fields. For Hallin and Mancini’s socio-historical use of Weberian ideal-typification complements Worsley’s never-completed plan for an ideal-typification of modes of populism and demagogic leadership.

政治传播研究在公共传播的命运上有着悠久的“危机对话”传统。但是，如今，该领域本身正面临着一种生存危机，因为其“正常”政治沟通的核心假设每天都在遭到破坏。这种“自由常态”与民粹主义研究中的正统观念有很多共同之处，最显着的是在历史性法西斯政权和民主国家中都存在消除煽动性交流的倾向。然而，纠正这些失败不仅仅是拒绝为左翼民粹主义采取自由主义模式的问题。相反，这两个领域都需要拓宽其历史参数并深化其理论框架。这篇文章借鉴了韦伯式的现代消磁概念，并在希尔斯和阿多尔诺（Shils and Adorno）的“现代媒体”之后加以修订。文章进一步指出，哈林和曼奇尼的媒体系统方法的关键改造可以使这两个领域都受益。因为哈林和曼奇尼在社会历史上使用韦伯式的理想化典型主义，对沃斯利从未完成的关于民粹主义和消极领导方式的理想化典型性计划的补充。